Dismissed

Ananda Dhondiram Ingawale and Anr. v. Sushila Rajaram Bhopale and Ors.

Bombay HC7 Mar 2024WP/1030/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court at Bombay dismissed a writ petition challenging an order directing issuance of a possession warrant. The court held it could not adjudicate merits as the status of the suit property remained unknown, dismissing the petition for want of prosecution.

What did the court decide?

Writ Petition dismissed for want of prosecution; liberty granted to move the Court if desired.

Ananda Dhondiram Ingawale and Anr. Vs Sushila… — Execution and Attachment | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

202.wp.1030.23.doc

¶2

Ajay

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 1030 OF 2003

¶5

Ananda Dhondiram Ingawale and Anr...Petitioners
Versus
Sushila Rajaram Bhopale and Ors. ..Respondents

¶6

Mr. Tukaram Shendge i/by Mr. Pratap Patil, Advocate for Petitioners.

¶7

CORAM:MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
DATE:MARCH 07, 2024.

¶8

P.C.:

¶9

1. Heard Mr. Shendge, learned Advocate for the Petitioners.

¶10

2. The order impugned in the present Writ Petition is passed

¶11

below Exhibit “51” in Regular Darkhast No.2 of 2000. By virtue of the
said order, the possession warrant under Order XXI Rule 35 of the
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 as per the reports submitted was
directed to be issued and it was also directed that if there is obstruction
of the Judgment Debtor, the decree would be executed by breaking

¶12

open the locks, if any put up by the Judgment Debtor. Police aid was
also allowed. Unless and until the present status of the Suit property is
not informed to the Court, this Court would not be in a position to hear
the present Writ Petition and pass any order.

¶13

3. Efforts are made by this Court by passing appropriate directions on 18.01.2024 followed by the directions on 25.01.2024 and

¶14

1 of 2

¶15

202.wp.1030.23.doc

¶16

22.02.2024.

¶17

4. Today, Mr. Shendge, learned Advocate appears instructed by Advocate Mr. Patil for the Petitioners. He submits that Advocate on record for the Petitioners has also taken efforts to attempt and establish contact with the Petitioners, but he has failed in establishing contact with the Petitioners and he does not have any information about the present status of the Suit property.

¶18

5. In view of the above, unless and until the present status of the Suit property is informed to the Court which is in respect of the order passed in Execution proceedings since long, this Court would not be in a position to adjudicate and decide the merits of the matter in the present Writ Petition.

¶19

6. In that view of the matter, Writ Petition is dismissed for want of prosecution and present status of the property by the Petitioners. Liberty is granted to Petitioners to move the Court, if so desired.

¶20

7. Writ Petition is disposed.

¶21

[ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]

¶22

Ajay

¶23

Digitally signed by AJAYTRAMBAK AJAY TRAMBAKUGALMUGALE UGALMUGALE Date: 2024.03.08 10:19:36 +0530

¶24

2 of 2

Ananda Dhondiram Ingawale and Anr. v. Sushila Rajaram Bhopale and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ananda Dhondiram Ingawale and Anr. v. Sushila Rajaram Bhopale and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jimmy Dara Sukhia Vs Dina Dara Sukhia and Ors.

Ganpat Dhondiba Shinde (Decd) Thru Lhrs Vs Rohidas Raghu Aswale and Ors.

Manikrao Lalaso Mohite Vs Baban Bandu Thorat and Ors.

Krishnat Dinkar Pawar vs Shankarrao Dattatraya Pawar and Ors.

Tanaji Ganpati Mane (Decd.) Thr Lrs. vs Shri Mahamadhanif Abdul Sutar

Sharad Machhindranath Patil Thr. Its Owner/Partner Vs Maharashtra Industrial Cevelopment Corporation